nustudent

Specifically moreso with Fuller than Hammond...you aren't missing a lot if he moves on. You have Gill, Roby and Horne coming in next year. Add a year of experience to McVeigh and White and Webster coming back and there are a lot of bodies you can play at the 3 and stretch 4 position. With Hammond, while I don't think he is very good and won't be...at least he has size. Fuller isn't athletic, big and for being known as a shooter, is remarkably bad at it. I would trust the coaches to have a feel for what they can get and what is out there. For example...if Tshimanga commits and they feel like they can get a quality transfer....then it may be time to have a difficult conversation. If they don't believe they can get a big guy and are iffy on Tshimanga...then don't. Which is what I was kind of saying IF and it is a big IF Tim and company could find 3 guys to come here that were upgrades then I guess you sit down and talk. But I haven't see Tim and company do that yet. So I said keep them until you know for sure that we have these new unbelievable players that will be coming in. Or are you saying dump these two and hope? Because that would be worse than what we have going now, right? Or are you saying that Fuller and Hammonds are any better than open scholarships? I'm saying we should recruit as if we have 3 open ships. If we can find some legitimate talent to come in...don't turn it away. As far as if Fuller and Hammonds are better than open scholarships. Nice to have them for practice players. I guess this is the way I will phrase it as being better than open scholarships. IMO, If both left and we replaced them with nobody, it would not cost us anything in the W/L record next year.

Specifically moreso with Fuller than Hammond...you aren't missing a lot if he moves on. You have Gill, Roby and Horne coming in next year. Add a year of experience to McVeigh and White and Webster coming back and there are a lot of bodies you can play at the 3 and stretch 4 position. With Hammond, while I don't think he is very good and won't be...at least he has size. Fuller isn't athletic, big and for being known as a shooter, is remarkably bad at it. I would trust the coaches to have a feel for what they can get and what is out there. For example...if Tshimanga commits and they feel like they can get a quality transfer....then it may be time to have a difficult conversation. If they don't believe they can get a big guy and are iffy on Tshimanga...then don't.

Just any old big man right? It doesn't matter if they can play right? You make it sound like it's an easy position to recruit. 6'11"+ quality guys just go on trees and we just need to pick one...right. Lets not go back in time where we waste scholarships on guys who make Hammond look like an AA. I don't want to see anyone transfer. Both of those guys, Hammond and Fuller, are at the very least serviceable, if not in games then in practice, who can give you good minutes and spark off the bench. They are also going to be upperclassman which provides our team with some stability and leadership. We need an off season of stability...for once. If anybody where to leave it should be Molinari since he coaches our big men, but even then I like to see us have some stability in our coaching. We have got to stop this revolving door of coaches and players and just stick with who we've got for better or worse. Miles took over a program that was an absolutely disaster. It is going to take much more than 4 years to get us to a spot where we have some stability and move us out of the bottom of the conference. With all that said Miles has to find a way with a smaller lineup to play against teams like Purdue. When you front a big men like Hammons or Haas you better make sure that that the guy who is passing the ball in to him has someone in his face. Several times our center rotated to help on defense against a penetrating guard when it wasn't necessary leaving the Purdue big man wide open for the dunk. A player like Hammons should always have a defender stuck to his hip. We also failed on rotating our defense leaving wide open 3pt shots. Early in the game all the wrong people where taking shots. Shields and AWIII were MIA and we looked like a team without any answers. Miles called TO a couple of times during that early Purdue run and it didn't help. Give credit to Purdue because they looked very polished. We have at least 2 more games left to play this season and in the NCAA isn't over until its over. This team is very capable of putting together a run. Until this game against Purdue we had played everybody in our conference tough, even in our losses. I grow tired of our entitled whinny fan base and our local hack media. We are becoming our own worst enemy. Lost me at Hammond and Fuller are serviceable. Because outside of the random game each...neither has shown that and they aren't exactly playing behind a ton of McDonald's All Americans. Neither could find a lot of time on a team that was very thin and very inexperienced and very inconsistent in the front court. That doesn't scream serviceable. They have both had more than just a random game. Each of them has had moments in games this year. That is the very definition of serviceable. Serviceable means role player and that is exactly the future I see for each of them. They also provide some real game time experience which means depth to our roster, something that has been lacking on our team for a very long time. These guys couldn't log serious minutes on a very frontcourt depleted roster. They combined for 0 points and 2 rebounds in 19 minutes the other night. Not my idea of serviceable. At least as it pertains to being a good team. My idea of a serviceable player is a guy who is consistently solid. Guys like Jacobson and Morrow this year were serviceable. They weren't great...they were freshmen who have ability and went through growing pains. At times they were good. Other times...not so much. Fuller and Hammond could barely even challenge them. And were bad far more often than they were good.

You probably weren't around earlier when we had this exact same discussion, but as I explained quite in depth at the time, this is absolutely one of the lamest narratives out there. Let's not go there again. I'm not going there. Which is why I said, I'm waiting for some personnel issues to clear up for making a decision. Just saying I think that's why there is dislike for him. We seemingly had momentum and positivity moving forward in the program then he steps in and we've had two poor years. From a 30,000 foot view perspective....I can see some would gravitate towards that conclusion. There is clearly more to be considered.

I'm waiting to see us get some personnel in before I blame him. But I think people are quick to because we've seen the drop off take place correspond with his tenure.

Just any old big man right? It doesn't matter if they can play right? You make it sound like it's an easy position to recruit. 6'11"+ quality guys just go on trees and we just need to pick one...right. Lets not go back in time where we waste scholarships on guys who make Hammond look like an AA. I don't want to see anyone transfer. Both of those guys, Hammond and Fuller, are at the very least serviceable, if not in games then in practice, who can give you good minutes and spark off the bench. They are also going to be upperclassman which provides our team with some stability and leadership. We need an off season of stability...for once. If anybody where to leave it should be Molinari since he coaches our big men, but even then I like to see us have some stability in our coaching. We have got to stop this revolving door of coaches and players and just stick with who we've got for better or worse. Miles took over a program that was an absolutely disaster. It is going to take much more than 4 years to get us to a spot where we have some stability and move us out of the bottom of the conference. With all that said Miles has to find a way with a smaller lineup to play against teams like Purdue. When you front a big men like Hammons or Haas you better make sure that that the guy who is passing the ball in to him has someone in his face. Several times our center rotated to help on defense against a penetrating guard when it wasn't necessary leaving the Purdue big man wide open for the dunk. A player like Hammons should always have a defender stuck to his hip. We also failed on rotating our defense leaving wide open 3pt shots. Early in the game all the wrong people where taking shots. Shields and AWIII were MIA and we looked like a team without any answers. Miles called TO a couple of times during that early Purdue run and it didn't help. Give credit to Purdue because they looked very polished. We have at least 2 more games left to play this season and in the NCAA isn't over until its over. This team is very capable of putting together a run. Until this game against Purdue we had played everybody in our conference tough, even in our losses. I grow tired of our entitled whinny fan base and our local hack media. We are becoming our own worst enemy. Lost me at Hammond and Fuller are serviceable. Because outside of the random game each...neither has shown that and they aren't exactly playing behind a ton of McDonald's All Americans. Neither could find a lot of time on a team that was very thin and very inexperienced and very inconsistent in the front court. That doesn't scream serviceable.

We will lose some experience and some of the defense of BP but next year there will be a very clear path for Glynn Watson to play 30+ minutes every game. One can certainly make the hindsight argument that he should have been already. When experience is the only positive thing you can bring up....I don't consider it much of a loss. Watson is/was the better player this year and the gap will only widen next year. And to be fair...I don't mean this to be a Hate on Parker thread. But in general 4th year seniors who struggle to score 4 points a game in 25 minutes of play, generally aren't real hard to replace. And if they are...you probably aren't faring real well.

He should have played more than he did.....but he's actually shown legit potential. Unlike a few of the others mentioned.

We're not going to sign Karl Anthony-Towns but I still think it's a bit misguided to assume we can't find someone better than Hammond. He's poor. Not meant to be a knock. Just reality. Sure he improved this year over last. But considering what the original basis was...that's not exactly a tough feat to accomplish. Let's revisit for a second. He's in his second year in the program and at 6'11" was beat out by two true freshmen who had injuries issues in the preseason and stood all of 6'7" and 6'8" and who aren't your prototypical 5 men. You'll understand if I'm skeptical. I'll give you that I'd rather have Hammond stick around than Fuller.

Still not quite sure what our offensive identity is.......hero ball? Defensively.....GATA has gone out the window. I think you'll see next year a lot more what Miles wants us to be offensively. You won't have as many black holes or liabilities next year. A deeper more complete roster. So Shavon is a black hole? I was referring more towards Petteway last year with that. But I do think there are times that the offense stagnates with Shavon. He's been great the last two games. But he had some pretty bad games early on in conference play as well

Still not quite sure what our offensive identity is.......hero ball? Defensively.....GATA has gone out the window. I think you'll see next year a lot more what Miles wants us to be offensively. You won't have as many black holes or liabilities next year. A deeper more complete roster. You've seen bits and pieces already this year. Somehow this is still the most efficient offense we've run in over a decade, essentially because Andrew White is on the team. And even when Shields was out...you saw some pretty good ball movement. Shields has some terrific games but sometimes it does come at the expense of ball movement and the rest of the team

Yeah, I don't get this at all. He's gone from no minutes to some important minutes and for the next 2 years his absolute floor is post player who can contribute minutes off the bench. Pry because it shouldn't be that inconceivable for us to find better. Especially with our track record of bringing in transfers under Miles. Inconceivable? No. Probable? What exactly have we been waiting for over the last 3 years? While true...at some point that is going to change. Especially with Fuller. Undersized post players who cant defend or score aren't exactly hard to find. With Roby and Horne coming in and another year for McVeigh....where does he fit in?

Still not quite sure what our offensive identity is.......hero ball? Defensively.....GATA has gone out the window. I think you'll see next year a lot more what Miles wants us to be offensively. You won't have as many black holes or liabilities next year. A deeper more complete roster.

Yeah, I don't get this at all. He's gone from no minutes to some important minutes and for the next 2 years his absolute floor is post player who can contribute minutes off the bench. Pry because it shouldn't be that inconceivable for us to find better. Especially with our track record of bringing in transfers under Miles.

Don't be so quick to pull the trigger on Benny... He plays a bigger role than many on here have EVER realized. We don't get "instantly" better by losing a 4 year guy like Parker. Sorry. Shields will be tough to replace, but Billy Beane would say you don't have to replace him... Just recreate him. Which you I think did. I want and expect both Fuller and Hammond to stay. Nick has his limits yes... But hustle and playing hard is something you can't teach and he showed plenty of heart last night. I think Nick is a lifer. Jake is big and there's always a chance he will improve. For as much as we are hurting for a big man, it's ironic that we want our biggest guy to transfer out of the program. Yes...we will be better. Parker is a liability on offense. He's okay at best defensively. His only redeeming quality is nullified the more minutes he plays. Hustle and hardwork alone doesn't make up for talent shortcomings. Fuller is a 3rd year player and despite that hustle and hardwork can barely find time on a team thin on depth. He's a tweener. With Roby and Horne coming in...there is even less of a role for him. Hammond is pretty bad. It shouldn't be a stretch to think we can find better. It'd be one thing if he was just raw offensively and could give you something defensively or on the glass. He's real bad there as well.

Find a big man and things change dramatically next year. Not to trash him on senior night...but we are instantly better the minute Parker's eligibiity expires. Shields is an all timer but I do think he's replaceable. For as good as he's been the last two games, he's had some poor games in conference as well. Another year of experience for Watson and the others and Gill and Roby coming in can offset Shields IMO. In a perfect situation for me...Fuller and Hammond move on... we get a 5th year or JUCO transfer big, Jordy T and a shooter for next year.

Lee is a hack. Always has been.

I think we have some solid perimeter shooters. Not great. But solid. We don't have that solid post. Finding a guy who is a threat on the interior will free up some room for some of our shooters. Not having Parker out there should also improve things

I agree in theory; however, your suggestion assumes Tai stays on the floor all game. Unless White spends more time at the 2, the current depth leaves us with heavy doses of Parker. Doesn't assume that. Tai will sit at times and Parker will still play...just 8-10 minutes rather than 25. And White can play the two in small doses. I for the life of me don't understand why we can't occasionally put Parker/Webster/White/Shields on the floor at the same time. Or give Morrow a chance at the 4 alongside Jacobson/Hammond at the 5. Let's say Parker plays 10 minutes; White plays 5 minutes a game at the 2; which leaves Watson/Webster with 32-33 minutes a game. Webster could handle that, but I am not sure Watson is there yet. If either Webster or Watson get into foul trouble though, we would see lots of Parker. Just curious. Could you see Roby playing the 2 next year? I would love to see Morrow come off the bench for Shields (or have Shields sometimes slide over to the 3 and play Morrow). Id be fine with Watson at 32-33 minutes per. Play your best players. If he gets in foul trouble...ok...respond accordingly. Id just like to see Morrow get spot duty from time to time alongside another big

I agree in theory; however, your suggestion assumes Tai stays on the floor all game. Unless White spends more time at the 2, the current depth leaves us with heavy doses of Parker. Doesn't assume that. Tai will sit at times and Parker will still play...just 8-10 minutes rather than 25. And White can play the two in small doses. I for the life of me don't understand why we can't occasionally put Parker/Webster/White/Shields on the floor at the same time. Or give Morrow a chance at the 4 alongside Jacobson/Hammond at the 5.

Next year for me will tell me what I want to know. No more excuses as that team is all on Miles. Granted...I don't think Miles does himself any favors with his lineups this year.

Personally...Parker shouldn't see more than 4-5 minutes a half. Start Watson at the point. When he needs his first breather, let Tai take the point. We've been good offensively the last two games when we've done that. Bring Parker in for 4-5 minutes a half to use his quickness and act as a spark defensively. Anything more than that and he'll wear done which completely negates anything positive he can bring to the table

I don't necessarily think Tai needs to be benched...but you simply can't play him and Parker together, especially for long periods of time. Start Watson, take your lumps with him learning. Heck....you take lumps with Parker and he's a senior. Having another scorer in the backcourt only makes Tai better and less of a need for him to score. Get Parker back to the role he thrives in....spark plug defensive guy off the bench

Are there? Last year there were 4 of our conference opponents were sub 100: Rutgers (181), Northwestern (130), Penn St (109), and Minnesota (101). We played Minnesota once and the rest twice which meant 5 of our 18 conference games were against sub 100 teams. This year we play Northwestern, Penn State, and Rutgers twice which is a 6 out of 18 games vs sub 100 assuming those teams don't progress this year. Will the rest of the teams we play be above 100 as well? Looking back we did only have 2 sub 100 non-con teams on the schedule so we should easily be able to match and exceed that. We should have more sub 100 teams on this year's schedule. I think the max is 4 more where 1-2 more is most probable. I think Northwestern will be decent this year. I can see them being a top 100 team. Say you have 3 more top 100 games. That's 10% of your schedule right there. Last year we played all of 2 non-con teams that were in the top 100. That will change this year as well.

In the eyes of RPI, Hawaii was a road game. We had 3 road games and 2 neutrals last year. That would carry some weight...but it will be offset in the differences in rankings. Hawaii was ranked 150th+ and the two neutrals we will have will average out to be about 70th (in terms of last year's RPIs) Let's also consider the weight in the eyes of the committee as well in terms of Top 100 wins. Lot more opportunities this year.